Wolf Hall

Hilary Mantel's superb novels 'Wolf Hall' and "Bringing Out of the Bodies' manage to execute an extraordinary balance. On one hand, they rehabilitate the reputation of Thomas Cromwell, one of Henry VIII's advisors, who received wisdom portrays as a man of viciousness and ambition; according to Mantel, this picture dates only from Victorian times, and Mantel rehabilitates Cromwell as a surprisingly humanistic working class hero. But as the same time, she never strays into the territory of ascribing modern motives to the characters she wishes she have our sympathy, and "primitive" attitudes to the ones we're supposed to hate. Instead, she brings us inside the morality of the times: the fact that it doesn't map cleanly onto our own is precisely what makes the books interesting. This BBC television adaption can't quite replicate the stream-of-consciousness from inside Cromwell's head provided by the novels, and almost inevitably it's a bit more Tudors-by-numbers. But it doesn't do a bad job either, avoiding the obvious clichés and giving us a convincing realisation of Mantel's work that captures most, if not quite all, of its inherent subtlety. Mark Rylance is simply superb as Cromwell, and most of the other actors offer a convincing interpretation of their roles, especially Claire Foy as Anne Boleyn, the minor noblewoman who punches above her weight all the way to the chopping block. What's still to come is the third (as yet unwritten) book of the trilogy, and the fall that follows Cromwell's rise. I look forward to it as novel and television alike.

I don't like giving ratings of 10 out of 10 because it implies that it can't be improved, which is never the case, but when I see drama as well written and well performed as this I want to see ratings that reflect that and respect it, and my 10/10 aims to redress some of the, in my opinion, ludicrous ratings of 1/10 that I see have been posted here. First the imperfections: I'm not sure why Peter Kosminsky, whose work I very much rate, has gone for hand held camera work in what is essentially a static shot. I have no problem with hand-held camera work per se, but the reasons for its use in a wide shot are lost on me, and the result is a slightly irritating amount of camera shake. Secondly, the time shifts could be a little clearer - blink and you miss the captions, and that's if they've actually been included. I think on one occasion the shift was implied rather than signalled. I suppose it does keep the audience on their toes.

But now to its huge strengths. First and foremost, the acting. I've been lucky enough to see Mark Rylance on stage and on television many times over the years and I think he's a force of nature, with everything he turns his hand to innovative and mesmerising, whilst at the same time containing the actor's essential ingredient - truth. That there is always something going on in his head is evident, but what is all the more intriguing is that we can't quite tell what it is . . . The rest of the cast are brilliant too, and the brief scene between Damien Lewis as Henry VIII and Cromwell was a mini delight and leaves me drooling in anticipation of future encounters between these two.

The costumes and locations are as impressive as ever with BBC productions, and will no doubt gather in numerous awards (although one bit of what I imagine was a CGI rendering of a Tudor village in the background didn't quite get there). There have been criticisms about the darkness of the lighting, a result of Kosminsky using lighting by candles (albeit with special cameras). I watched it in HD in a darkened room and I can't say it caused me any problems at all, and in fact I commented on how light and airy some of the daytime scenes were, showing life in the day in the same light - literally - as it would be today, as opposed to the generalised gloom in some depictions of the period.

I thought the pace was well-judged, especially when one acknowledges the difficulties in squeezing Hilary Mantel's immense volumes into six hours of television, and Peter Kosminsky has kept events moving along without being afraid to linger a while on the subtle signals of intrigue that are never far from Mark Rylance's face. The fact that much of Kosminsky's work has been in the political arena is very obvious here, and he gives us a needle-sharp insight into the machinations of that world, indicating that in oh so many ways, things don't change that much. Apart from the costumes, of course.

I can't wait for the rest of the series.

The Tudor period is one of the most fascinating of historical periods, and, when they're done well (and they mostly are, a number brilliantly even), so are filmed or televised historical period dramas.

Of the numerous films, documentaries and mini-series of the Tudor period, 1971's 'Elizabeth R), 1970's 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII', 1966's 'A Man for All Seasons', 1998's Elizabeth, 1971's 'Mary Queen of Scots' and 1935's 'The Private Life of Henry VIII' are particularly great. Also very much enjoy 1969's 'Anne of the Thousand Days', 1986's 'Lady Jane' and David Starkey's late 90s- early 00's documentaries on Henry VIII and Elizabeth, and have heard nothing but good things about 2005's 'Elizabeth I' and 1972's 'The Shadow of the Tower' (both of which are high on my to see list).

'Wolf Hall' appealed to me straightaway with the great talent that it had on board and that the two books that it's based on are very absorbing reads. Some people might take the attitude of "why another drama based on the Tudors when there are so many already?", but few if any have been done from the viewpoint of Thomas Cromwell, one of the most interesting , from what has been written about him and how he has been portrayed on film and TV, figures from this period. 'Wolf Hall' may not be the most original (then again did it ever need to be?) or accurate (being based on two part-historical, part- fiction books based on the period) of Tudor dramas, but on its own it's utterly riveting television. To me, some of the absolute best of 2015, let down only personally by a slightly rushed final episode and an on-the-abrupt- side ending that gave the sense that the series could and should have been an episode longer.

Some people have taken issue with the slow pace, the dim lighting, even the production values, as well as questioning the accuracy and some of the characterisations. None of these were issues with me. From personal view, 'Wolf Hall' is a very well-made series, the scenery, locations and interiors are incredibly lavish and the costumes are well-worn, true to period and lovingly tailored (didn't see any cheapness at all). It is beautifully photographed too, and the candle light and natural daylight added absolutely to the drama's authenticity as that is how it would have been back then. The music score is pleasant and unobtrusive with a good sense of mood.

The quality of the writing in 'Wolf Hall' is superb too. It is very literate, remarkably intelligent and thoughtful with a surprising amount of subtlety that was much appreciated. As well as some understated but witty humour, suspense and palpable poignancy. There is none of the stilted, over-flowery rambling quality that it could have had, and there is similarly none of the subtlety-of-an-axe writing that was present in Tudor dramas like particularly 2003' s 'Henry VIII' and the still enjoyable-if-taken-on-its-own-terms-as- entertainment 'The Tudors'. Reportedly, director Peter Kosminksy was bowled over by the quality of the first draft of Peter Straughan's script-writing, amazed at how he managed to compress two long books into 6 hours worth of television so sensitively (the author of the books Hilary Mantel also called his writing "a miracle of elegant compression"), praise that this viewer too agrees with because it really was one of the most striking things about it. Adaptation- wise, 'Wolf Hall' may be compressed but what is there is faithfully done and it still manages to be coherent. The slow pacing was deliberate and not only was not a problem at all (personally, and for many others too) but necessary, the quiet and sometimes dark tone working beautifully. The first episode may have a slight find- its-feet feel pace wise but gets strong quickly, and there is nothing gratuitous, out of place or heavy-handed-for-the-sake-of- shock-value. In terms of effective scenes, Anne Boleyn's execution was heart-wrenching and chilling and the final scene between Cromwell and Henry is enough to bite the nails.

Kosminsky directs splendidly, and the performances are uniformly of high quality in very well-written complex roles that are, unlike 'The White Queen' (at first) , easy to tell who's who. Particular praise should go to the tour-De-force portrayal of Mark Rylance as Cromwell, more sympathetic and understated than most characterisations of Cromwell (often portrayed as the opposite, though the scheming calculating characteristics are not forgotten just not as obvious as it can be), but Rylance displays the remarkable and also rare gift of doing so much with as little as a glance and very few words, refreshing after sitting through a fair few performances recently where actors struggle to give anywhere near that amount of believability to a page, or even a line, of dialogue. Some of his most effective acting even is when he is reacting to what is being said to him or when he shows stillness amidst chaos.

Damian Lewis also excels and brings multiple dimensions to one of history's most famous (and notorious) monarchs, as do Anton Lesser as a less-than-saintly (one of historians' chief objections apparently) but still fascinatingly complex Thomas More and Bernard Hill's repellent and authoritative Duke of Norfolk. Claire Foy brings a conniving bitchiness and radiant charm to Anne Boleyn, her interpretation is not the most dimensional in the way Genevieve Bujold's performance is but it is still a compelling performance.

All in all, truly riveting stuff and very highly recommended. 2015 was hit and miss for television, and 'Wolf Hall' was up there with the hits. 9/10 Bethany Cox

The two seasons of this series are very well made and well acted. This show should be great for fans of the Tudor period but if that doesn't interest you, or you've seen too much on that narrow topic, then maybe not.

Just one thing bothered me. They really need to stop casting black actors in historical dramas where no black people would have appeared. Okay, maybe darker skinned members of the Spanish legation but not members of Henry's court. I don't think they realize that it gives the appearance of grating racism when they cast black people in minor roles but of course never in a major role.

In Shakespeare, okay. But this is hardly Shakespeare. Bridgerton is okay too. That's a fantasy. If you are going for historical realism and not one of those fantasy shows aimed at teenagers who hate history, then stick with history.

Why put all that effort into getting the costumes right if you're going to get the actors wrong? I usually don't complain about DEI like you-know-who but this is a case where I have to object.

If the BBC needs to meet some quota for non-white actors, then choose stories that naturally lend themselves to non-white characters. If it has to be some aspect of British history, then the colonial period is a possibility.

Maybe the BBC doesn't have the budget for overseas location shooting anymore? I've heard they had budget problems for the second season of this show. Maybe that explains why there was so many padding scenes of people walking through courtyards and gardens.

In summary, it's worth watching but I think I've met my lifetime quota for Tudors now. Move on to something else.

I rate this 10/10 to counterbalance a couple of people who, perhaps used to watching flat TV shows, have given a most unfair 1/10 rate to a magnificent mini-series.

The acting is impeccable. Mark Rylance plays a remarkable Cromwell, completely taking over the audience with a subtly nuanced character composition. I've always enjoyed Damian Lewis, so it is no surprise his Henry VIII hasn't disappointed me in the least. But Claire Foy, what a talented, lovely interpretation! They, together with Saskia Reeves (an excellent actress), Jessica Raine and a constellation of great actors make Wolf Hall a truly powerful experience to view more than once.

The production boasts of a marvelous attention to detail, from indoors decoration to costumes, behaviours and dining-- a pleasure to relish on.

But what most impressed me (other people have hated the show for this) is the dim, realistic candle-lit night scenes. I have always deplored movies with fake candle-lit interiors which are an insult to viewers' discerning ability. Now you watch Wolf Hall and you can almost smell the dripping burning candles!

The action is very well plotted, considering the books are quite lengthy. There is nothing boring in this 6-episode great TV show and much to enjoy and admire. When episode 6 gets to the closing scenes, you end up wishing there were a second or third season (though, the truth must be said, no one would like to see Cromwell's ill-fated decapitation in Rylance's human and favourable depiction).

In short, if you appreciate exquisite direction and photography, excellent acting, a great script adaptation and a lavish historical production, you will find this show second to none.